Why have we never built a base on the moon?

Question

Given that we have only been to the moon once (allegedly), why have we built stations in space but not on the solid ground of the moon. One would assume that the solid ground would make a good anchor point for bases and repairs would be easier without the more difficult spacewalking to do?

Answer 1

ambition. cost.

Answer 2

NASA wanted to follow up the Apollo program with a lunar base. Richard Nixon knew the Apollo triumph would always be associated with JFK and LBJ who he despised and wanted to end the whole man in space effort completely. He didn't think the public would go for it because at that time NASA could do no wrong in the eyes of most people. He canceled any plans for a lunar base and any effort to put men on Mars in favor of the Space Shuttle. It was pretty much take it or leave it so NASA went with the Space Shuttle although they knew the 5.5 billion budgeted was not enough. Another stipulation of the project was they had to work with the Air Force which made the shuttle larger heavier, more expensive and complicated. Even the wings were included because the Air Force wanted certain cross range landing capabilities.
Money and the ego of Richard Nixon is the reason we do not have a Moon base today
.

Answer 3

By space you mean orbiting the Earth. The moon is considerably further away requiring more energy to get there. Orbiting space stations simulate zero gravity, which is necessary for some experiments such as growing perfect crystals. The moon has gravity. Landing on the moon presents considerable problems: too hard a landing will mean the trip would be one-way. No real problem once a station and supplies have been established, but until then ... Then there's the trip back to earth: enter the atmosphere too steeply and the spacecraft will burn up; too shallow an angle and the capsule would skim off the Earth's atmosphere and out into space. I think that these problems are considerably more difficult to solve than spacewalking.

BTW We have allegedly been to the moon more than once.

Answer 4

"Allegedly"? The lunar landings are some of the best-documented events in human history and there is overwhelming, incontrovertible scientific evidence that proves that they were real.

Anyway, we went a total of 6 times, but we haven't established a base there because it's far cheaper and less risky to do it in Earth orbit. It's much easier to send materials and personnel into low Earth orbit (several hundred miles up) than it is to go to the Moon, nearly a quarter million miles away. Not only would a lunar base be prohibitively expensive, but if something went wrong, the astronauts would be a long way away from home.

So it makes sense to build a space station before a lunar base for the same reason students learn arithmetic before calculus: it's important to learn the basics before you try something really advanced.

Answer 5

This question uses a few key words which I wish to point out to the Asker...

They are: "One would assume..."

In fact the comparison between a Moon Base and the International Space Station is an invalid comparison for the
following reasons:

1.) The International Space Station is roughly 75 Miles from the surface of the Earth. The Moon is 240,000 Miles from the surface of the Earth.

2.) The International Space Station is flying around the Earth at 25,000 Miles Per Hour (more or less) in orbit. Ships traveling up to the ISS need only blast off from the Earth's surface, attain escape velocity and then through various manuvers, dock with the space station. Return to Earth is a matter of undocking and decellerating to begin a high speed drifting glide back down to the Earth's surface.

Travel to the Moon's surface requires the same blast off and reaching escape velocity, then a 240,000 Mile flight to the Moon where a decelleration from 25,000 Miles Per Hour (more or less) down to ten or fifteen Miles Per Hour is required to land on the Moon's surface. Returns to Earth require an additional launch and attainment of escape velocity all over again plus a flight of 240,000 Miles which gets the space ship back into the vicinity of the Earth's atmosphere and ready for a decelleration and drifting glide back to the Earth.

In short, much, much more fuel, time, equipment and supplies are needed for flights to the moon's surface.

3.) The construction of any permanent facility on the surface of the Moon would require the transport of thousands of pounds of material and equipment there. That transportation comes at a very high price...something like $100,000 per pound delivered. At this time there is no massive economic benefit to be gained by such an huge expense. Plus, any permanent facility on the Moon would entail constant resupply missions for everything immagineable from air, and fuel for heating to food,water and toilet paper. It is much cheaper to provide those supplies to the orbiting ISS for the reasons mentioned above.

4.) Spacewalking is very dangerous and dificult to do on the ISS and on the surface of the Moon. In either case, one small accident is all it takes to spell disaster for the Astronaut. The minimal benefit of having a hard surface to walk on does not reduce the dangers involved.

Answer 6

cost

Currently per a pound it costs about $100,000 to get something to the moon. THe base would have to be self sufficient and be able to produce something (hydrogen?) to make it worthwhile. That is a lot of money and resources to commit. Especially when there are so many political and economic hurdles for such an endeavor

Answer 7

This bloke came into my school once, and said that a ticket to spend 5 minutes in space is about £200,000. So imagine how much it would cost to build a base on the moon? And secondly, we haven't even been to the moon, people say we have, but i for one believe we haven't!

Answer 8

that's is a good question, it might have something to do with cost or it could be that a station on the moon has no use for us as much as a station in orbit around earth.

Answer 9

"Once"?!

6 manned landings. And safe returns. Very expensive. The American public thought it was being done so routinely that it got bored. No more funding.

Answer 10

The short answer is that until recently, we were unsure about how to proceed.
The long answer will amaze you - it is a really good thing, but not mine to announce.
Actually, they already told us very publically, but nobody was paying attention.

Answer 11

It is in the works right now,, it will be a place for astonauts to prepare to go to mars,